On August 01, 2019 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Valentine, Nathaniel,
and
Deploy Hr, Inc.,
for Employment - Complex
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
for December 14, 2021
Tentative Rulings
Department 8-26
Judge David Cohn
t 8-26 are posted on the court’s website
Rul ing s for Dep art men
Tentat ive at 3:00 p.m. or at 7:00
g/d ivisio nslciv il/civ iI—tentative-rulings)
(httgs://www.sb~court.or ruling is posted at 3:00 p.m.,
hearing. If no tentative
the cou rt day bef ore the
p.m.
check again after 7:00 p.m.
please
must appear for the hearing
sub mit on a ten tat ive ruling, you
If you do not wish to
Failure to
aIl (88 8-882-6878 or www.courtcall.com).
per son or via Cou rtC ive ruling,
either in
parties submit on a tentat
a waiver of oral argument. If all
appear is deemed rt at the hearing. The tentative
co me the ruling of the cou
the tentat ive ruling will be partie s to provide
r iss ues on which the court requests the
may not e partic ula mandatory,
ruling
attendance at the hearing is
hearing. Ifso directed,
further argument at the
either in person or via CourtCalI.
notice of the
or other hearing shall serve written
vai ling on a mot ion
The par ty pre
ruling.
notice of the
court’s ruling unless all parties waive
Deploy HR, Inc.
10. Valentine v.
ClVDS- 1 922 853
Motion to Stay
Tentative Ruling:
Deny.
aggrieved employees
mos t of the put ative class members (and the
While or putative class
individuals who
all are the
Mal don ado are the same
for the PAGA claim) in
case, the defendants are different: World
loy ees) in this
memb er s (an d agg rie ved emp Defendant
HR, |nc., in this case.
Mal don ado and Deploy
Class Distri but ion, Inc. in
practices—whether there
were
the sa me day to day employment
argues, however, tha t
workers at World Class
re iss ue in bot h cas es because the
Labor Code violations—a
at
agency. The same Labor Code
Dep loy HR, a staffing
wer e pla ced the re by
Distribution e-periods.
s are alleged in both cases for overlapping tim
violation
Maldonado, whether by res
HR cannot be bound by any decisions in
Class
But Deploy Similarly, World
eral est oppel, bec aus e Deploy HR is not a party.
ble ms of
judicata or col lat
case. There could be pro
dec isions in this
cannot be bou nd by any may be
Distribution Class Distribution
fs in both cases. In Maldonado, World
pro of for the plaintif
“If there were Labor Co de violations,
HR as the offending party:
able to poi nt to Dep loy point to the analogous
An d this cas e, Dep loy HR may be able to
Deploy HR did it!" in
Page 1 of 4
CV526121421
Labor Code violations, World Class Distribution did it!” But
empty chair: “Ifthere were
problem for the plaintiffs, not for the defendants. Both cases will need
this is a potential
separately. No advantage is gained by staying this case pending
to be tried (or settled)
a resolution of Maldonado}
11. Environm tal Logistics v. Hayward '
al.
CIVDS- .00695
1)
"
4 mg on Submitted Matter: lotion to Tax Costs
entative Ruling on Moti »
for Attorney Fees
(4/
Motion to Tax Costs
f The court aopt s tentative ruling issued o ovember 23, 202
' ‘
. hile
been unable to provide onformed copy of cost
defendant Tabush h
memorandum, it. o-pers to be more likWnot that the cou isplaced it,rather
bein submit d to the courtf iling. Tabush has rovided evidence that it
than it not
an, as counsel are aware, the
was submitt- for filing in e usual c rse by counsel
problems due to ffing shortages brought bout
court has cently experiencd fili a
pndemic. Importantly, : erything was time v
served so there was n orejudice
by the
to pla' tiffs.
/ Denied.
/
/ Motio fo ttorney Fees
'
awardable u er Code of Ci rocedure section 3426 A
on a claim for
Fees re ,
bro a
~
bad faith. Plaintiff ailed to prove
misappro iate of trade se ets that is t I
sec ’
s belon' to plaintiff given the absence of
Tabus isappropriateo ny trade g ,
evigefice, the claim ws arguably b a ght in bad fal ,
alth- 4 h the point is strongly
contested
'
Even so = fee award is discr'o ary under the statute.
by plain s.
o'
698.57 hours of orneyti e was recorded and -d, at
Mr. Po et testifies at .
time was re orded and bille t $150.00
$250.00 our, and 9 0.17 hours of parale l
p '
reasonab -, in fact they are e low for Is type of
per houy he hourl rates are q
Ieal community. Nev heless, the court has bs- a ovided no
litigatigh in this
No cords or summarie
tsoever about wh done. .
info/mation w, as actually billi
Th ourt therefore has no ba '.
o det- ine whethe e
were provided to the court. '
appropr' While so e frac of the
fees “reqor‘ded and billed” w- e necessary and e.
subst r
fraction and possibly '
ost or even all—w easonably
hoursT‘brobably a ial
1/,
a
1/
amendment, and the re
‘
st fordismissa in
1
The court takes judicial notice of the complaint, th -
are different
‘
ach case, although t alleged
Maldonado for the limitc’é purpose of showing thatthe défendants i
-
overlap. The court otakes judicial notice of tpapers
Labor Code violatiecyére the same and the time—permds .
pertaining to the pItion for coordination for the [inqited purpose of
eval r
mg the spurious argument that th x
coordinatio is not.A11 other requests for judicia
motion is a motion for reconsideration of tlfiyfiion for
t
notice are denied 0n the ground of relevanc /
Page 2 of 4
CV526121421
Document Filed Date
December 14, 2021
Case Filing Date
August 01, 2019
Category
Employment - Complex
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
for December 14, 2021 Tentative Rulings Department 8-26 Judge David Cohn t 8-26 are posted on the court’s website Rul ing s for Dep art men Tentat ive at 3:00 p.m. or at 7:00 g/d ivisio nslciv il/civ iI—tentative-rulings) (httgs://www.sb~court.or ruling is posted at 3:00 p.m., hearing. If no tentative the cou rt day bef ore the p.m. check again after 7:00 p.m. please must appear for the hearing sub mit on a ten tat ive ruling, you If you do not wish to Failure to aIl (88 8-882-6878 or www.courtcall.com). per son or via Cou rtC ive ruling, either in parties submit on a tentat a waiver of oral argument. If all appear is deemed rt at the hearing. The tentative co me the ruling of the cou the tentat ive ruling will be partie s to provide r iss ues on which the court requests the may not e partic ula mandatory, ruling attendance at the hearing is hearing. Ifso directed, further argument at the either in person or via CourtCalI. notice of the or other hearing shall serve written vai ling on a mot ion The par ty pre ruling. notice of the court’s ruling unless all parties waive Deploy HR, Inc. 10. Valentine v. ClVDS- 1 922 853 Motion to Stay Tentative Ruling: Deny. aggrieved employees mos t of the put ative class members (and the While or putative class individuals who all are the Mal don ado are the same for the PAGA claim) in case, the defendants are different: World loy ees) in this memb er s (an d agg rie ved emp Defendant HR, |nc., in this case. Mal don ado and Deploy Class Distri but ion, Inc. in practices—whether there were the sa me day to day employment argues, however, tha t workers at World Class re iss ue in bot h cas es because the Labor Code violations—a at agency. The same Labor Code Dep loy HR, a staffing wer e pla ced the re by Distribution e-periods. s are alleged in both cases for overlapping tim violation Maldonado, whether by res HR cannot be bound by any decisions in Class But Deploy Similarly, World eral est oppel, bec aus e Deploy HR is not a party. ble ms of judicata or col lat case. There could be pro dec isions in this cannot be bou nd by any may be Distribution Class Distribution fs in both cases. In Maldonado, World pro of for the plaintif “If there were Labor Co de violations, HR as the offending party: able to poi nt to Dep loy point to the analogous An d this cas e, Dep loy HR may be able to Deploy HR did it!" in Page 1 of 4 CV526121421 Labor Code violations, World Class Distribution did it!” But empty chair: “Ifthere were problem for the plaintiffs, not for the defendants. Both cases will need this is a potential separately. No advantage is gained by staying this case pending to be tried (or settled) a resolution of Maldonado} 11. Environm tal Logistics v. Hayward ' al. CIVDS- .00695 1) " 4 mg on Submitted Matter: lotion to Tax Costs entative Ruling on Moti » for Attorney Fees (4/ Motion to Tax Costs f The court aopt s tentative ruling issued o ovember 23, 202 ' ‘ . hile been unable to provide onformed copy of cost defendant Tabush h memorandum, it. o-pers to be more likWnot that the cou isplaced it,rather bein submit d to the courtf iling. Tabush has rovided evidence that it than it not an, as counsel are aware, the was submitt- for filing in e usual c rse by counsel problems due to ffing shortages brought bout court has cently experiencd fili a pndemic. Importantly, : erything was time v served so there was n orejudice by the to pla' tiffs. / Denied. / / Motio fo ttorney Fees ' awardable u er Code of Ci rocedure section 3426 A on a claim for Fees re , bro a ~ bad faith. Plaintiff ailed to prove misappro iate of trade se ets that is t I sec ’ s belon' to plaintiff given the absence of Tabus isappropriateo ny trade g , evigefice, the claim ws arguably b a ght in bad fal , alth- 4 h the point is strongly contested ' Even so = fee award is discr'o ary under the statute. by plain s. o' 698.57 hours of orneyti e was recorded and -d, at Mr. Po et testifies at . time was re orded and bille t $150.00 $250.00 our, and 9 0.17 hours of parale l p ' reasonab -, in fact they are e low for Is type of per houy he hourl rates are q Ieal community. Nev heless, the court has bs- a ovided no litigatigh in this No cords or summarie tsoever about wh done. . info/mation w, as actually billi Th ourt therefore has no ba '. o det- ine whethe e were provided to the court. ' appropr' While so e frac of the fees “reqor‘ded and billed” w- e necessary and e. subst r fraction and possibly ' ost or even all—w easonably hoursT‘brobably a ial 1/, a 1/ amendment, and the re ‘ st fordismissa in 1 The court takes judicial notice of the complaint, th - are different ‘ ach case, although t alleged Maldonado for the limitc’é purpose of showing thatthe défendants i - overlap. The court otakes judicial notice of tpapers Labor Code violatiecyére the same and the time—permds . pertaining to the pItion for coordination for the [inqited purpose of eval r mg the spurious argument that th x coordinatio is not.A11 other requests for judicia motion is a motion for reconsideration of tlfiyfiion for t notice are denied 0n the ground of relevanc / Page 2 of 4 CV526121421